Early Hepatitis B Vaccines and the “Man-Made” Orig

[Iron Bonny Shades]

www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm


Early Hepatitis B Vaccines and the “Man-Made” Origin of HIV/AIDS

by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.

This article regards a matter of global urgency transcending better known AIDS threats. It describes a universal challenge posed by ever increasing numbers of plagues predicted to depopulate at least half of the world’s current human inhabitants within two generations. This documented science virtually proves, through the process of elimination and a review of the most updated evidence, the origin of HIV/AIDS as an iatrogenic (i.e., man-made) outcome of specific vaccination experiments.

Considered reflection on this AIDS science, along with the sociopolitical correlates and antecedents of this current catastrophe, reveals the likelihood that myriad other immune
dysfunctions, autoimmune diseases, and cancers, including leukemias, lymphomas, sarcomas, and other ailments linked to viral infections, have resulted from previously engineered microbes that have by accident or intent found their way from cancer virus laboratories into humanity’s bloodstream by way of the most trusted public health preventative—vaccinations.

If what you are about to read is true, and each point is precisely stated and meticulously documented, beyond extensive depopulation, humanity’s very survival may hinge on this recognition, its implications, and our considered response. Especially relevant, when reflecting on the following facts, is the wisdom addressed by the late World Health Organization (WHO) AIDS czar, Dr. Jonathan Mann, whose life ended tragically on Flight 111 enroute to a European AIDS conference. “More than a medical scientific problem,” Dr. Mann said, “AIDS is a sociopolitical imposition.”

Background

AIDS is undoubtedly “man-made.” We can now assert this “very apparent iatrogenic origin,” versus the “theoretic iatrogenic origin” of HIV/AIDS because of the rapidly increasing, now substantial, scientific support for this conclusion. Currently, international scientific consensus among leading investigators in this field, many of whose works and words are excerpted below, holds that HIV/AIDS originated from one or more extraordinary man-made, not natural, events dating back to the early to mid-1970s. Especially implicated in initiating the AIDS pandemic, according to many scientists and scholars, was the hepatitis B vaccine as detailed in the following pages.

This may come as a surprise, or even quite a shock, to most people since the mainstream media and most respected medical journals have yet to herald the following knowledge. As a result most “authorities” still issue false and misleading claims such as: 1) “the HB vaccine theory of HIV/AIDS origination has been discussed, debated, and dismissed by an overwhelming majority of the HIV/AIDS research community;” 2) “People who claim that AIDS was man-made provide false information and hearsay;” 3) “It is sad that public attention and resources are diverted to attend to such unscientific dribble;” 4) “Man-made origin of AIDS vaccine proponents do severe damage to the public health community and vaccination efforts;” and 5) “Those that advance man-made theories of AIDS have financial motives,” as though there were no financial interests on the other side of the debate.

As a pro bono consultant contacted recently by Amnesty International (AI) members who desired to advance a resolution for the global organization to investigate this HB vaccine thesis, I was appalled by the amount of resistance and politicking performed by members of AI’s so-called “HIV/AIDS Task Force” which sought $1 billion of relief for human rights violations associated with HIV/AIDS from the U.S. Government. These funds, the Task Force reported, were urgently needed to buy drug–cocktails for persons with HIV/AIDS. Each of the five claims cited above were issued by members of this Task Force completely ignorant of the following science.

With regard to the first offensive claim, as the sole author of “Polio, hepatitis B and AIDS: an integrative theory on a possible vaccine induced pandemic” published by Harcourt Publishers, Ltd. of London in the esteemed international journal of Medical Hypothesis,2 this well-focused thesis has never been “discussed, debated,” nor “dismissed” by any consensus in any official capacity. Although Black Americans have been polled regarding the origin of HIV/AIDS being man-made,3 there has never been a published polling of the scientific community in this regard, and certainly not one regarding the HB hypothesis advanced below.

HIV/AIDS Origin Misconceptions Versus Science

Opponents of iatrogenic (or “man-made”) theories of AIDS have routinely confused hearsay and sporadic media propaganda with hard science, such as that “discussed, debated” and not “dismissed” recently at the Royal Society of London’s inquiry into the origin of this pandemic. They exclusively focused on the theory that contaminated polio vaccines triggered the HIV/AIDS pandemic.4 These proceedings were published in 2001. Quotes relevant to reasoned consideration of this unique/yet-to-be-tested hepatitis B vaccine theory of HIV/AIDS follow. These statements were made by featured presenters, all recognized leaders in this multidisciplinary field discussing the polio vaccine theory of AIDS origination. The first of these quotes is especially relevant to
proposed investigations:

“There should be an investigation by an international committee mostly composed of non-medical people concerning how a rather obvious and plausible theory [of AIDS’s origin from contaminated vaccines] came to be scorned and restricted from publication for so long, especially when important consequences regarding mankind’s worst epidemic, and even more important consequences for other possibly even worse that may be following, hang in the balance. As a corollary it should be studied why the hypothesis had to be promoted mainly by outsiders to science and medicine. The ressures towards investigation (and non-investigation) that emanate from huge drug companies and their influence in slanting research in subtle ways should also be examined, as should the role of journals and peer review in potentially obstructing publications of controversial kinds.” W.D. Hamilton,5 quoted by Julian Cribb in “The origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: can science afford to ignore it?” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (2001) 356:935-938.

“Faced with the terrible burden of AIDS, stories that HIV was introduced into Africa from the West by an accident such as OPV [oral polio vaccine] or intentionally by the USA Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have gained widespread credence. . . . Nevertheless, because natural transmission repeatedly occurs, albeit on rare occasions, does not mean that contamination of a vaccine could not have been the route on another occasion. As with other infections, e.g., hepatitis B virus,natural and iatrogenic transmissions of retroviruses are not mutually exclusive.” Weiss, RA6

Despite studies that have advanced evidence suggesting an earlier than 1970 origin of HIV/AIDS,7-9 “[t]he fact that there were ten or so synchronous but distinguishable African epidemics is a definitive feature of AIDS for which the natural transfer theory [e.g., the “cut hunter transfer”] gives no convincing account. . . . To summarize these findings regarding the relatively large number of distinct group M subtypes: no set of likely natural conditions . . . will adequately simulate so many as ten distinguishable subtypes in a complex star-like configuration . . . . [T]he onus is upon the supporters of the natural [not iatrogenic] theory to account for the unexpectedly large number of HIV-1 subtypes. Exponential growth of the epidemic(s) is not by itself a satisfactory explanation (Hahn et al. 2000). . . . The likeliest source of the multiple subtypes and the synchronization of their conspicuous diversification is a punctuated origin [i.e., an iatrogenic event]. . . . t is not far-fetched to imagine the ten or so clades deriving from a single animal (perhaps immunosuppressed and possessing a swarm of variants) [as might have been the case with chimpanzees used in the process of vaccine manufacture] or from a few animals that might have belonged to a single troop or might have been gang-caged together. The number of animals required is secondary to the extent of variation in the source at the time of the zoonotic [i.e., transfer of the virus between species] or iatrogenic event. The [vaccine] hypothesis makes a case for such a punctuated origin . . .” Myers G, et al. 10

“We conclude that SIV cannot become a zoonosis, but requires adaptive mutations to become HIV. Some modern event must have aided in the transition of SIV to HIV. Our research indicates that serial passage of partially adapted SIV between humans could produce the series of cumulative mutations sufficient for the emergence of epidemic HIV strains . . . We conclude that increased unsterile injecting in Africa during the period 1950-1970 provided the agent for SIV human infections to emerge as epidemic HIV in the modern era.” Drucker E, et al.11

I might interject at this point that this conclusion by Drucker et al, although seriously undermining natural evolution theorists, reflects a myopic arrogance unbecoming to their otherwise reasonable hypothesis. Their conclusion neglects the risks inherent in the hepatitis B vaccine manufacturing and testing process as detailed below consistent with the analyses of Myers et al.10 Obviously, all of the above authoritative statements contradict “common knowledge.” The consensus of scientists at this historic British AIDS origin conference favored additional investigations into possible iatrogenic sources of the HIVs.

[Iron Bonny Shades]

opinions?

[Merkuri]

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to believe a word of this. "Origin of Aids," according to their website, is a company that sells health products. They're selling something, and that immediately makes me not trust them because they are, above all, trying to make money. I feel as though we would have heard about something like this from the news or a non-profit health organization. The sensationalist news would have jumped on this long ago if it had the possibility to be true. And rumors about the possibly man-made origins of AIDS have been around for a while. Its creation has been blamed on the CIA, the Russians, and Hitler. This just looks like another reincarnation to me.

----
[From the Urban Legends Reference Pages: www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp ]

Claim: AIDS was created by the CIA.

Status: False.

Examples:


[Turner, 1993]

AIDS was a chemical experiment sponsored by the CIA that went awry.


[Collected on the Internet, 1994]

American scientists created AIDS in a laboratory as a weapon to be used on enemies of the United States, and they began testing it on unsuspecting populations in Africa and Haiti, where they lost control of the experiment.


[Turner, 1993]

Apparently the CIA was testing to find a disease which would resist any cures known to man. They did this testing somewhere in Africa. The purpose of finding this incurable disease was to bring America back to the old days of the moral majority. Therefore this disease was to be transmitted sexually among the outcasts of society, namely people of color and gay men.


Origins: The ghastly disease AIDS burst upon the scene in the early 1980s. Though this particular grim reaper has not long stalked among us, it has taken millions of lives and has staked its cold-fingered claim to millions more. That it seemed to appear out of nowhere has sparked a multitude of rumors regarding its origin and path of destruction. Rumors about AIDS include claims that it was:

* An out-of-control germ warfare virus that escaped from its handlers.
* Spread by specific ethnic groups (e.g., Haitians).
* Put in the fluoride of our drinking water.
* Put in K-Y Jelly by the Centers for Disease Control to eliminate homosexuals.
* Developed by the CIA.
* Developed by the Russians.
* Created in Hitler's laboratories.

Scientists are generally agreed that AIDS jumped the species barrier from chimpanzees to humans. (Chimpanzees host a virus called SIV, simian immunodeficiency virus, which is regarded as being similar to HIV.) AIDS is not the only new contagion to have begun in such fashion; Ebola and Marburg, two infectious diseases that kill incredible numbers of those who contract them, were passed to humans from monkeys.

It's a simple explanation: Diseases live on by finding victims to infect, and diseases that jump species (sometimes undergoing changes in the process) find a whole new set of victims available to them. Yet this is too pat an explanation for many of us, and we tend to reject that which doesn't fit well to our understanding of our world, substituting in its place myths that, although disturbing, at least seem more logical. We make the arrogant assumption that our world should always make sense according to our current level of knowledge; such a premise works well in most cases but breaks down in the face of matters our understanding does not yet encompass. At those moments at least some of us scramble to find explanations — any explanations — that can be shoehorned into service.

That a death-dealing plague could spring into being during our lifetimes defiles our cherished sense of order: deadly diseases don't just come from nowhere, after all, at least not according to our understanding of the way of things. We've also grown to trust that Science always has the answer for everything. That this pestilence could defy the efforts of our best healers and researchers strikes us as flat-out wrong. Surely a natural malady would have been cured by now; ergo, we conclude, AIDS must be manmade. The disease's sudden appearance and its tenacity have laid a foundation for rumors about biochemical pathogens that escaped the laboratory by accident and supported whispers that the virus was engineered to wipe out specific ethnic or racial groups. It is, after all, far more comforting to believe in malevolent forces like the CIA than to grasp that nature could spontaneously create incurable diseases.

Rumors about lab experiments gone wrong or deliberate attempts to decimate certain groups are part of our struggle to come to terms with the unfathomable, to reduce it to something that can be comprehended and dealt with. Also, the AIDS origin stories we tell give us someone to blame, providing us with the comfort of a whipping boy in place of the terror inherent to "It just happened; there was no because to it." The acknowledgement that something so deadly could "just happen" is a starkly unforgiving reality that arrives accompanied by its chilling yet unstated companion message of "Something similiar could happen again, maybe even tomorrow, and maybe even to us." AIDS origin rumors reflect both western society's anxiety about this dread killer and its attempts to make sense of it.

AIDS origin rumors fall into two categories: biological warfare experiments tried out on groups deemed expendable (Africans or Haitians) or deliberate attempts to diminish particular "unfavorable" populations (Africans, Haitians, homosexuals) via biochemical attack. In her study of AIDS origin lore, folklorist Patricia Turner identified a number of recurring motifs in the hundreds of versions of the rumor she collected:

* A branch of the U.S. government was usually the author of the conspiracy — the CIA, the army, the Reagan administration, the Pentagon, the Centers for Disease Control, the far right, and "the superpowers."


* The contamination targets of the conspiracy were labeled as Africans or descendants of Africans, either directly or by implication (i.e., AIDS was developed to target Haitians, Africans, blacks, black babies, "the lower classes," or "the outcasts of society"). Many informants identified more than one group, claiming, for instance, the conspiracy was intended to limit both the gay and the black populations.


* The conspiracy was usually described as either an experiment that got out of hand or as an intentional use of biological, chemical, or germ warfare.


* The spread of the disease through groups other than those intended by the conspirators (e.g., white heterosexuals) was described as a huge mistake.

That the first victims of AIDS were members of groups some deemed contemptible (homosexuals and drug users) supported belief that the disease had been deliberately manufactured for the purpose of ridding society of particular classes of undesirables. We now know AIDS is a blood-borne virus, but that knowledge was not in place when this new plague first began to take lives. In retrospect, it makes sense that the initial victims of AIDS would have been drawn largely from those two groups, but at the time the mechanism through which the disease spread was a mystery, a condition that led some to latch onto a commonality between the two prevalent victim groups and accept an explanation based on that commonality. Likewise, those whose religious or moral bents led them to conclude homosexuals and drug users were abominations in the eyes of God looked not to the CIA as authors of the virus but to the Creator, seeing AIDS as a deliberate act by a fed-up deity to rid Himself of those who had broken His laws.

Part of the prevalence of the AIDS origin rumor that pins responsibility for the virus on the CIA (or another group within the American government) may be due to deliberate Soviet misinformation designed to discredit the USA. An article charging AIDS was the product of U.S. germ warfare experiments first surfaced in the Soviet newspaper Literary Gazette in 1985 and claimed the AIDS virus was created at a supersecret Army research laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. The only source cited was the Patriot, a leftist Indian newspaper that, U.S. experts charged, was a favored conduit of the KGB for its disinformation campaigns.

In 1986 at a summit held in Zimbabwe, what purported to be a scholarly paper linking the U.S. military with AIDS was widely circulated. The authors did not have any expertise in AIDS research, but their offering was taken somewhat seriously by many who read it. The paper charged the disease had been introduced into Africa from Europe — not through homosexual practices or intravenous drug use, but by tainted blood supplies, which may have originated in the U.S. Its conclusion was unambiguous: AIDS was let loose on the world by biological warfare experimenters at Fort Detrick. That the rumor might well have been deliberately formulated by a foreign government at odds with the USA was an interesting curiousity.

Barbara "on the cold war path" Mikkelson

Last updated: 6 March 2003

[Iron Bonny Shades]

yup, just wanted to put this up to the litmus test we call scrutiny.

it failed my checks as well.